|
|
| Re: RPA: The Fourth Regional Plan: Create a fully integrated, regional transit system (1458353) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: RPA: The Fourth Regional Plan: Create a fully integrated, regional transit system |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Dec 15 11:38:22 2017, in response to Re: RPA: The Fourth Regional Plan: Create a fully integrated, regional transit system, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 15 02:41:26 2017. I had originally thought through-routing was the answer to NYP's congestion issues, but there are a few things that make it workable elsewhere but unworkable here:1. Equipment need to be fully compatible with stations and ROW on both sides. The electrification differences preclude everyone's MUs, and considering MNRR had to go with third rail for the M8s into NYP, a universal MU is a pipe dream. The mix of high and low platforms on NJT means only NJT equipment should go there, as MNRR's Shoreliners lack long doors. Making every railroad buy long door equipped cars for a handful of NJT stations is an unnecessary burden, and in LIRR's case the extra doors would be a complete waste of space. 2. Where through routing works, trains are of a similar length / passenger capacity throughout most of the network. If there are delays on the incoming side, a substitute can be handed off without causing further issues later in the day. LIRR trains are 6-14 cars long, MNRR are 6-12 cars long, and NJT are 3-14 cars long. The added requirement that trains handed off be of roughly the same capacity makes scheduling harder and emergency substitutions even more difficult. SEPTA pulled it off because the two 'sides' were roughly the same after they hacked off much of the RDG's network. MBTA can pull it off for similar reasons. But the NY area railroads have a lot of work to do to get to that level. Maybe in 50 years. |
|
|
|